• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What are the distinctives of "Reformed Baptist"?

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@Martin Marprelate

You have made an interesting claim (or, to be more precise, you have repeatedly an interesting claim). But you have not been able to substantiate that claim.

You say that there are passages in the Bible that I reject. If this is true then you would provide those passages and I would be grateful for you pointing it out.


If it helps (and as a reminder of what I believe) here is a summary if my views on the topics I have discussed (it is just a summary). It is what you have called a "heresy".


God created Adam (man) from the dust, planted a Garden and placed Adam there. God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2). God told Adam that in the day he ate of the fruit death would be certain (Gen 2:17). Adam transgressed God’s command and his eyes were opened (Gen 3:6-7). God told Adam that because of his transgression he would work the land (the land was cursed) until he died, for he was dust and to dust he would return (Gen 3:19). God told the Serpent that he would put enmity between him and the woman, and between their offspring, that He would crush its head and he would strike His heel (Gen 3:15).

Adam had become like God, knowing good and evil. So that he would not take from the Tree of Life and live forever, God cast Adam out of the Garden, back to the place from which he was created (Gen 3:21-24).
Through Adam’s sin death entered the world and spread to all man, for all have sinned Rom 5:12). Sin was in the world before God gave the Law, but sin was not charged against people as a transgression as they did not break a command (vs. 15). Nevertheless, death reigned even where there was no law because of sin.

Just as through the disobedience of one man, Adam the many were made sinners , so also through the obedience of the one man, Christ, the many will be made righteous (Rom 5:18-19).

The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), for sin produces death (James 1:15). Death spread to all because all have sinned (Romans 5:12). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. (Heb 9:27). I believe that God became man (truly man) like us but without sin (Heb 4:15). He bore our sins bodily on the cross (1 Peter 2:24).
God became one of us (Heb 2:11-13) so that we would become like Him (Jn 15:4; Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 3:18) and share in His glory (Rom 8:17).

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:23). The second statement (the gift of God) does not nullify the first (the wages of sin), because sin produces death (James 1:15). But it does remove the sting of death (1 Cor 15:55) because although we die yet shall we live (John 11:25).


Please point out any passages I have rejected. If there are any I need to examine them and revise my belief.

Just saying I reject passages does not help without providing the passages I reject.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
Also, you don't want to quote Guzik, he is a Calvinist, and also does speak favorably of Luther.

David Guzik's Position on Calvinism​

Personal Beliefs​

  • David Guzik does not identify as a Calvinist.
  • He appreciates many aspects of Reformed and Calvinistic theology but does not fully agree with all their doctrines.

Key Points of Disagreement​

  • Guzik emphasizes that he believes in:
    • God's sovereignty
    • Man's inability to save himself
    • The importance of God's covenants in redemption
  • He disagrees with the Calvinistic view that regeneration precedes faith, which suggests that one must be born again before believing.

Relationship with Calvinism​

  • Guzik acknowledges that many people in the Calvary Chapel movement may hold views that blend elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism.
  • He aims to let Scripture speak for itself, rather than strictly adhering to either Calvinist or Arminian interpretations.

Conclusion​

While Guzik values certain teachings from Calvinist thinkers, he does not classify himself as a Calvinist and maintains a nuanced approach to the doctrines of salvation.


Auto-generated based on listed sources Enduring Word calvarychapel.com
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is what you have called a "heresy".
I have not called your views a heresy - ever. I never call anyone's views on a forum a heresy.
I called Charles Taze Russell's views heretical, and pointed out that he, and others like him, claimed "just to believe the Scriptures" as you claim to do.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I have not called your views a heresy - ever. I never call anyone's views on a forum a heresy.
I called Charles Taze Russell's views heretical, and pointed out that he, and others like him, claimed "just to believe the Scriptures" as you claim to do.
Yes you did, messages and reports to staff (I can see the reports and I was included in the pm's).

Look through your messages.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@Martin Marprelate

You claimed that I reject passages. If this is true then I would call my belief heresy and correct it so that it does not reject Scripture.

I care less about what you think about my beliefs than I do about holding a biblical beluef.

You made a claim, which I take seriously. Often others can see what we miss. Please let me know the passages I rejected and how I rejected them.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
@Martin Marprelate

You claimed that I reject passages. If this is true then I would call my belief heresy and correct it so that it does not reject Scripture.

I care less about what you think about my beliefs than I do about holding a biblical beluef.

You made a claim, which I take seriously. Often others can see what we miss. Please let me know the passages I rejected and how I rejected them.
You are using the scriptures at times with what some of us see as being A miS understanding OF those passages
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@Martin Marprelate

You claimed that I reject passages. If this is true then I would call my belief heresy and correct it so that it does not reject Scripture.

I care less about what you think about my beliefs than I do about holding a biblical beluef.

You made a claim, which I take seriously. Often others can see what we miss. Please let me know the passages I rejected and how I rejected them.
Which post are you thinking of? Let's have chapter and verse.

You, on the other hand have repeatedly accused me and every other Reformed Baptist of being closet Roman Catholics. Here your post #64.
JonC said:
If you took your faith and separated what was actually in God's Word from what you believe is somehow taught by God's Word (when "properly understood" as given by the demi-gods...or Re-formers of RCC theology) you have mostly re-formed RCC theology and very little of God's Word.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Which post are you thinking of? Let's have chapter and verse.

You, on the other hand have repeatedly accused me and every other Reformed Baptist of being closet Roman Catholics. Here your post #64.
I was thinking of the post where you said I reject passages. I was just wondering which ones.
I have never accused you of being a closet Roman Catholic.
I pointed out that your theology is re-formed Roman Catholicism.


I was simply asking you to provide the passages that I deny so that I can correct my understanding. If you are calling my belief a heresy (I assume with Scripture rather than men as the standard) then help me out.

I also would like you to provide what part of my belief on essential doctrine is not actually in the Bible so that I can correct that error as well.


I have pointed out what of your faith is not in the Word of God so that you have the choice to lean on your understanding or on every word that comes from God.

That is what we (those of us who are Christians) do. We point out what the other cannot see so that we do not stray from God's Word, from Truth.


I am asking what parts of God's Word I reject and what parts of my belief is not actually "words that cometh forth from God".

I was not calling you a liar, but asking you to provide that for correction just as I have pointed out where your faith has strayed from God's Word.

If you think my beluef is biblical, that it does not stray from God's Word, that it does not contain anything outside of God's Word as actual belief, then why would you fight so hard against it?
 

5 point Gillinist

Active Member
I have pointed out what of your faith is not in the Word of God so that you have the choice to lean on your understanding or on every word that comes from God.

That is what we (those of us who are Christians) do. We point out what the other cannot see so that we do not stray from God's Word, from Truth.
So, are you saying the Martin is not a Christian? And by that extension those who interpret the bible as he does?
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I was thinking of the post where you said I reject passages. I was just wondering which ones.
And I have asked you which of my posts you are thinking of. Let me have the post number and I will answer you.
I have never accused you of being a closet Roman Catholic.
I pointed out that your theology is re-formed Roman Catholicism.
That is the same as saying that I am a closet Roman Catholic.
I was simply asking you to provide the passages that I deny so that I can correct my understanding. If you are calling my belief a heresy (I assume with Scripture rather than men as the standard) then help me out.
Firstly, I have NOT called your belief a heresy. It may be because I'm a Brit, but I associate that word with the burning of Lollards and Reformers, and I don't use it. What I have done is to say, correctly, that just about every heretic that ever was has declared that he "just holds to Scripture." I have NOT called you a heretic. Give me the post number that you object to, and I will answer you.
I also would like you to provide what part of my belief on essential doctrine is not actually in the Bible so that I can correct that error as well.
Will do, when you provide the post number.
I have pointed out what of your faith is not in the Word of God so that you have the choice to lean on your understanding or on every word that comes from God.
You have, of course, done nothing of the kind. My faith is is line with the 1689 Confession1:1 which states, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience" (2 Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29-31; Eph. 2:20). If you have a problem with this, tell me what it is and we can discuss it.
That is what we (those of us who are Christians) do. We point out what the other cannot see so that we do not stray from God's Word, from Truth.
I have been teling you for 20 years and it does not seem to have done much good.
I am asking what parts of God's Word I reject and what parts of my belief is not actually "words that cometh forth from God".

I was not calling you a liar, but asking you to provide that for correction just as I have pointed out where your faith has strayed from God's Word.

If you think my beluef is biblical, that it does not stray from God's Word, that it does not contain anything outside of God's Word as actual belief, then why would you fight so hard against it?
Again, tell me which post of mine you are speaking of, and I will reply as soon as I can. However, I have continuing duties at my church and elsewhere, so my reply may not be immediate.[/QUOTE]
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
So, are you saying the Martin is not a Christian? And by that extension those who interpret the bible as he does?

No that is not what I see in @JonC words. What I see there is him pointing out that those that hold to the calvinist understanding are just confused Christians.

You have added man-made views to the word of God and in some cases actually hold those views to be superior to the word of God.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is your definition of "soul liberty," is it?
Once again, addressing me and running from any sort of contribution to the topic. False teachers have this practice in common, as they cannot defend their false doctrines from truth.

Did I provide my view of "soul liberty" in post #51? Yes. Calvinists deny the lost are able to understand and affirmatively respond to the gospel, but if a lost person is free to believe the gospel, they are not enslaved to darkness. This top down, believe this or you are out dogma is inconsistent with several baptist distinctives.

The rich young ruler was seeking eternal life, thus able to understand and desire this spiritual promise from God.
Many lost people will seek the narrow door (which is Christ) but will not find it, thus able to seek the spiritual promise of salvation.

I could go on and on with verse after verse where lost people seek God. All the Calvinists do is read into Romans 3:11 that none seek after God "at any time" which is not in the text.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not the topic of this thread, but an off-shoot, is the question, do"Reformed Baptists" reject a number of traditional baptist distinctives? And of course, the answer would be yes.

The "Reformed Baptists" are top down baptists, if you do not believe as we believe you are not one of us. And they reject "soul liberty" where a lost soul has the innate ability to accept or reject the gospel.
Here is your first problem. "Soul liberty" is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of his conscience in the matter of religion. It does not address the question of whether a lost soul will trust in Christ without the leading of the Spirit. The Bible does that (Romans 8:8-9; 1 Cor. 2:14 etc., etc.).
The Reformed Baptist distinctives of the TULI are not in the bible and should be thrown out of every baptist church in America.
And here you are denying soul liberty to Reformed Baptists. Heigh-ho!
 

5 point Gillinist

Active Member
You have added man-made views to the word of God and in some cases actually hold those views to be superior to the word of God.
I don't know anyone who is reformed who would hold to tradition over proper interpretation. I think we simply desire to have convincing scriptural exegesis in order to change our view (as anyone should). I would say that your statement comes from a worldview that believes yours is the proper interpretation. Could you be wrong? If not, then your own traditions are being held superior to scripture. As such, I don't think anyone on this thread has seen any scriptural evidence given to change one's view from either side, say what you want, but I'd be careful about lobbing the accusation against others of holding their views to be superior to God's word should it be you that is in fact guilty of it.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is your first problem. "Soul liberty" is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of his conscience in the matter of religion. It does not address the question of whether a lost soul will trust in Christ without the leading of the Spirit. The Bible does that (Romans 8:8-9; 1 Cor. 2:14 etc., etc.).

And here you are denying soul liberty to Reformed Baptists. Heigh-ho!
It does not address? Yes it does. You cannot believe in the gospel if you are unable to believe the gospel, thus not free.

I do not deny your right to believe false doctrine, scripture clearly indicates many will not find the narrow door. I just want to knock down your signposts pointing to the broad road that leads to destruction. Only a false teacher would deny our right to call out false teachers.

Did I claim a lost soul will trust in Christ without the "leading of the Spirit." Nope, so there you go again making false charges to change the subject. No one comes to Christ without being drawn (attracted) by the Father through the revelation of the gospel of Christ! But none of that requires "supernatural enablement by Irresistible Grace."
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I was thinking of the post where you said I reject passages. I was just wondering which ones.
I have never accused you of being a closet Roman Catholic.
I pointed out that your theology is re-formed Roman Catholicism.


I was simply asking you to provide the passages that I deny so that I can correct my understanding. If you are calling my belief a heresy (I assume with Scripture rather than men as the standard) then help me out.

I also would like you to provide what part of my belief on essential doctrine is not actually in the Bible so that I can correct that error as well.


I have pointed out what of your faith is not in the Word of God so that you have the choice to lean on your understanding or on every word that comes from God.

That is what we (those of us who are Christians) do. We point out what the other cannot see so that we do not stray from God's Word, from Truth.


I am asking what parts of God's Word I reject and what parts of my belief is not actually "words that cometh forth from God".

I was not calling you a liar, but asking you to provide that for correction just as I have pointed out where your faith has strayed from God's Word.

If you think my beluef is biblical, that it does not stray from God's Word, that it does not contain anything outside of God's Word as actual belief, then why would you fight so hard against it?
We are stating that your Jesus as Victor understanding of the Atonement is acceptable, bu the PST would be the preferred atonement viewpoint, as accords best with Pauline Justification and in line with our spiritually dead status before getting saved , and is the standard reformed view, and held by Calvinistist/Reformed and many Non Cal Baptists
 
Top